ArchSexBehav DOI10.1007/s10508-010-9676-2 ORIGINAL PAPER The Effects of Impulsivity, Sexual Arousability, and Abstract Intellectual Ability on Men’s and Women’s Go/No-Go Task Performance KathrynR.Macapagal • ErickJanssen • DanielJ.Fridberg • PeterR.Finn • JuliaR.Heiman Received:2October2009/Revised:29July2010/Accepted:29July2010 (cid:2)SpringerScience+BusinessMedia,LLC2010 Abstract Whileanumberofstudieshaveassessedtheroleof Introduction personalitytraits,situationalvariables,anddruguseonsexual riskbehaviors,fewerstudieshaveemployedexperimentalmeth- Sexualdecisionsmadeinthe‘‘heatofthemoment’’canhavedire odstoexaminecognitiveprocessesthatmayunderlierisky consequences.Riskysexualbehaviorscanresultinunplanned sexualdecisionmaking.Thisstudyusedago/no-goparadigmto pregnanciesandleadtosexuallytransmittedinfections(STIs) examinehowindividualdifferencevariablesandsexualarousal andhumanimmunodeficiencyvirus(HIV),ratesofwhichremain influence discrimination learning and sexual and nonsexual highintheUnitedStates(CentersforDiseaseControlandPre- decisionmaking.Atotalof28men(Mage=20years)and25 vention,2009;JointUnitedNationsProgrammeonHIV/AIDS& women (M age=19years) completed self-report measures of WorldHealthOrganization,2007).Whileresearchhasidentified impulsivity,abstractintellectualability,andsexualexcitationand anumberofdispositional(e.g.,impulsivity,sensationseeking) inhibition and participated in a laboratory experiment. The andsituational(e.g.,mood,sexualarousal)factorsassociated experimentconsistedoftwogo/no-gotaskswithsexualstimuli withincreasedlikelihoodofriskysexualpractices,lessisknown andtwotaskswithneutralstimuli,precededbyeithersexually aboutrelationshipsbetweensuchfactorsandcognitiveprocesses. arousing or sexually neutral stimulus presentations. Task per- Thecurrentstudyexaminedtheeffectsofdispositionalandsit- formance was measured by totals of false alarms and misses. uationalfactorsoncognitiveprocessesrelevanttosexualdecision Individualshighinimpulsivityandlowinabstractintellectual makingthroughtheuseofexperimentalmethods.Toevaluate ability committed more false alarms in conditions involving theserelationships,weusedawidely-usedmeasureofdiscrimi- sexuallyarousingstimuli.Furthermore,highersexualexcitation nationlearninganddecisionmaking,thego/no-gotask,which scoreswerelinkedtomoremisses.Thesefindingsindicatethat hasyettobeemployedinsexualdecisionmakingresearch. cognitiveprocessesassociatedwithdecisionmakingthatoccurs inthe‘‘heatofthemoment’’areinfluencedbyacombination ofsituationalandsexualandnonsexualindividualdifference DualSystemsTheoriesofDecisionMaking variables. Therationalmodelofdecisionmaking—inwhichindividuals Keywords Go/no-gotask(cid:2)Impulsivity(cid:2)Sexual consider the risks and benefits of several options in order to arousability(cid:2)Intellectualability(cid:2)Dualprocesses make the best decision; a time consuming and effortful pro- cess—isbelievedtobeinsufficienttoexplaindecisionmaking underallconditions(Kahneman,2003).Toexplaindepartures K.R.Macapagal(cid:2)E.Janssen(cid:2)J.R.Heiman fromrationaldecisionmaking,dualsystemstheorieshave TheKinseyInstituteforResearchinSex,Gender, proposedthatchoicebehaviorisgovernedbytwoinformation andReproduction,IndianaUniversity,Bloomington,IN,USA processingsystems.Whilethedetailsofeachtheoryvary,they K.R.Macapagal(&)(cid:2)E.Janssen(cid:2)D.J.Fridberg(cid:2) generallyagreethatonesystem,genericallylabeled‘‘System1’’ P.R.Finn(cid:2)J.R.Heiman (Stanovich&West,2000),involvesrapid,preconsciouscog- DepartmentofPsychological&BrainSciences,Indiana nitiveprocessingandisresponsibleforautomatic,or‘‘intuitive’’ University,1101EastTenthSt.,Bloomington,IN47405,USA e-mail:[email protected] decisions.System1drivesjudgmentsanddecisionsmade 123 ArchSexBehav effortlesslyoroutofhabit,andwhichprovedifficulttomodify Inadditiontoimpulsivity,othermechanismsspecifictosex- (Kahneman,2003).System1dealslargelywithaffectivelyor ual behavior and response should be considered as possible motivationallysalientstimulusinformation,whichisencoded contributorstoriskysexualbehavior.Onecandidateconcerns inmemoryduringinitialexposuresandguidesdecisionmaking theroleofindividualdifferencesinsexualinhibitionandexci- duringsimilarorrelatedsituationsinthefuture(Hofmann, tation(Bancroft,1999;Bancroft&Janssen,2000).Sexual Friese,&Strack,2009).Forexample,duringasexualencounter, excitationreferstotheeasewithwhichanindividualbecomes positiveexperiencesandsexualarousalcanleadanindividualto sexuallyaroused,andsexualinhibitionreferstothedegreeto associatesexwithdesirableandpositivefeelingsandoutcomes. whichpotentialsocial, physical,oremotionalthreatsorrisks Subsequentsexualencountersmayactivatetheseassociations maysuppresssexualarousalandassociatedapproachtenden- and,inanautomatic,preconsciousway,biastheindividual cies.Severalstudiesinvolvingbothmenandwomenhavefound towardaspecificwayofresponding(e.g.,engaginginunpro- thatsexualexcitationisassociatedwithhighnumbersofsexual tectedsexwithoutconsideringfutureconsequences). partnersandsexualinhibitionwithinconsistentcondomuse(for IncontrasttoSystem1,‘‘System2’’reliesuponcontrolled, areview,seeBancroft,Graham,Janssen,&Sanders,2009). conscious,andeffortfulprocessingandmediatesrational,delib- erativedecisions(Stanovich&West,2000).System2opera- tions lend themselvesto serial processing and rely uponpast IntellectualAbility consequences, as well as present and future implications of actions,toguidedecisionmaking.UnlikeSystem1,System2 Lowintellectualabilityhasbeenassociatedwithriskydecision operationsarerule-governed,emotionallyneutral,andmonitor making(e.g.,Batty,Deary,&Macintyre,2006;Brand,Heinze, cognition and overt behavior, including those generated by Labudda,&Markowitsch,2008;deWit,Flory,Acheson, System1.Throughitsfocusonrationaldecisionmaking,alarge McCloskey, &Manuck, 2007),including sexualdecision proportionofearlierresearchonriskysexualbehavioriscon- making(e.g.,Shearer,Mulvihill,Klerman,Hovinga,&Redden, sistentwiththeSystem2view(e.g.,Pinkerton&Abramson, 2002). Lower abstract intellectual abilities, which include 1992).Inthecontextofthepreviousexample,thedecisionto planning,reasoning,workingmemory,andattention,arelinked engageinriskysexualactivitywouldbetheresultofapurely toriskydecisionmakingaswell(Giancola&Tarter,1999).Indi- rationalcomparisonofrelativerisksandrewardsofeachpos- vidualswithlowabstractintellectualaptitudemaynotdrawas sibleaction.AlthoughSystem2processescouldpossiblyover- much on past experiences or consider implications of their rideorinhibitSystem1,theyarementallytaxingandserialin choiceswhenmakingdecisions,andmayhavemoredifficulty nature,oftenleadingtoapredominanceofmoreintuitive,auto- inhibitingimpulsesrelativetoindividualswithhigherabstract matic,System1choicebehaviors(Strack&Deutsch,2004). intellectualability.Onestudyshowedthatundertheinfluenceof alcohol,adultswithlowerintellectualabilitiesweremorelikely Impulsivity,SexualInhibition,andSexualExcitation to report intentions to engage in sex without a condom in a hypothetical sexual scenario compared to those with higher Dualsystemstheoriesholdthatthedegreetowhicheachsystem intellectualabilities(Abbey,Saenz,Buck,Parkhill,&Hayman, guidesdecisionmakingisinfluencedbydispositionalorsitua- 2006).However,littleelseisknownabouttheroleofintellectual tionalvariables(Hofmannetal.,2009).Thismaybeparticularly aptitudeinthesexualdecisionmakingprocess.SinceSystem2 relevanttodecisionsmadeinsexualsituations,asfactorssuchas operations rely heavily on intellectual abilities (Stanovich & mood, sexual arousal, and certain personality characteristics West, 2000), lower intellectual aptitude may hinder rational havebeenfoundtoaffectsexualdecisionmaking(e.g.,Abbey, sexualdecisionmakingandbiasanindividualtowardSystem1 Saenz, & Buck, 2005; Bancroft et al., 2003; MacDonald & processes. Hynie, 2008; MacDonald & Martineau, 2002). For example, impulsivity,orthetendencytoactwithlittleforethoughtor regardforconsequences,hasbeenlinkedtoaproclivityfor SexualArousal various risk behaviors (Llewellyn, 2008; Verdejo-Garcia, Lawrence,&Clark,2008).However,itsassociationwithsexual Inadditiontomorestable,ortraitvariables,thestateofsexual riskbehaviorshasbeenlesswidelystudied.Justus,Finn,and arousalisassociatedwithcompromiseddecisionmakingin Steinmetz(2000)foundthatnumbersofone-nightstandsand groupswithapropensityforsexualrisktaking,suchasHIV- casualsexpartnerswerepositivelycorrelatedwithimpulsivity, positivemenwhohavesexwithmen(Shuper&Fisher,2008) butnotafteraccountingforothertraitsindicativeofbehavioral andheterosexualcollege-agedmenandwomen(Abbeyetal., disinhibition including sensation seeking. In another study 2005;Ariely&Loewenstein,2006;Ditto,Pizarro,Epstein, (McCoul&Haslam,2001),impulsivitywasassociatedwith Jacobson, & MacDonald, 2006; MacDonald, MacDonald, unprotectedsex,butnotwithnumbersofsexualpartnersin Zanna,&Fong,2000).Insexualsituations,sexualarousalinflu- high-riskheterosexualmen. ences attention to appetitive or aversive cues (Barlow, 1986; 123 ArchSexBehav Wiegel, Scepkowski, &Barlow,2007). Combined with high taking individuals (e.g., Finn, Mazas, Justus, & Steinmetz, impulsivity, low sexual inhibition, or low intellectual ability, 2002; Newman, Widom, & Nathan, 1985) and involve pro- sexualarousalmayincreasethesalienceofdesirable,immediate cessesrelevanttobothlearningtorespondtostimuliassociated prospects (e.g., sexual pleasure) and decrease the salience of withreward(‘‘Go’’stimuli)andlearningtowithholdresponses undesirablefutureconsequences(e.g.,unintentionalpregnancy, to stimuli associated with negative consequences (‘‘No-go’’ STItransmission),renderingsomepeoplemorelikelytotake stimuli).Someversionsofthetaskincludeacontingencyrever- sexualrisks.Moreover,sexualarousalmayimpactnegatively sal,inwhichGostimulibecomeNo-gostimuliandviceversa. anindividual’sabilitytodiscriminatebetweenhigh-andlow- Failing to update one’s representations of the Go and No-go risksexualpartnersorsituations(Shuper&Fisher,2008). stimuliafterthereversalisassociatedwithaninabilitytoadapt behaviortounexpectedcircumstances(Finn,Justus,Mazas,& Steinmetz, 1999). This task involves processes analogous to AssessmentofSexualDecisionMakingProcesses sexualsituations.Forexample,failingtousecondomsonareg- ularbasiscanleadtoSTIinfection.Someindividualsmaylearn Previous laboratory research on sexual decision making has from this consequence and alter their future behavior to use reliedmainlyuponbehavioralanaloguetaskstoexaminehow condoms consistently; however, others may not adapt to this situationalanddispositionalfactorsinfluenceindividuals’sex- consequenceandcontinuetohaveunprotectedsex.Depending ualrisktaking.Forinstance,participantsmaybeaskedtoimag- ontheperson,thesedecisionsmaybeinfluencedtodifferent inethemselvesinahypothetical,eroticizedsexualsituationwith degrees by sexual arousal, sexual inhibition and excitation, anewpartnerwherenocondomisavailable(e.g.,Abbeyetal., impulsivity,andintellectualaptitude. 2005,2006;Georgeetal.,2009;MacDonaldetal.,2000;Norris Ultimately,acloserexaminationofSystem1decisionpro- etal.,2009).Participantsmaybequeriedregardingtheirinten- cessescouldclarifywhysomeactcarefully,andothersimpul- tionstoengageinsexualriskbehavioratvariouspointsduring sively,inthe‘‘heatofthemoment’’ofasexualsituation.Thus, thetask,whichallowsresearcherstodeterminehowsituational thepresentstudyusedago/no-gotasktoexaminehowsitua- variables and sexual and nonsexual traits moderate different tional(i.e.,sexualarousal)andsexualandnonsexualvariables stagesofthedecisionmakingprocess.However,thesebehav- (i.e., impulsivity, sexual inhibition and excitation, and intel- ioralanaloguetaskslikelyaccessmorecontrolled,deliberative lectualaptitude)influenceautomaticcognitiveprocessesrele- System2processesthanautomaticSystem1ones. vanttosexualdecisionmaking. ToinvestigateSystem1operationsrelevanttosexualbehav- ior,researchershaveusedimplicitcognitive-behavioralmeth- ods,includingpriming(e.g.,Janssen,Everaerd,Spiering,& Hypotheses Janssen,2000),dot-detection(e.g.,Prause,Janssen,&Hetrick, 2008),Stroop(e.g.,Smith&Waterman,2004),andlexical First,wepredictedthathighimpulsivitywouldbeassociated decisiontasks(e.g.,Gillath,Mikulincer,Birnbaum,&Shaver, withworseoverallperformanceonthego/no-gotask(e.g.,Finn 2007).Thesetaskshavebeenusedtomeasurehowsexualinfor- etal.,1999).Second,wepredictedthatlowsexualinhibitionor mation influences automatic cognitive processes, behaviors, highsexualexcitationwouldbelinkedtoworseperformanceon andpsychophysiologicalresponsesinclinicalandnon-clinical thetask,specificallywhenindividualswerepresentedwithsex- populations.Forexample,primingtaskshavedemonstratedthat uallyarousingstimuli.Wemadenopredictionsregardingsex subliminalexposurestosexualstimulifacilitatedecisiontimes differencesonthetaskbasedonthedualcontrolmodelsince,to tosexualstimulibutnotnonsexualstimuli(Gillathetal.,2007; date,noexperimentalresearchhascomparedsexualinhibition Janssenetal.,2000;Spiering,Everaerd,&Janssen,2003).Some andexcitationpatternsinmenandwomen.Third,weexpected studieshavefoundthatprimingwithsexualstimulicaninflu- thatlowerintellectualabilitieswouldbeassociatedwithworse encegenitalresponses,ascansubliminallypresentedstimuliin performanceonthetask,particularlyinconditionswithsexually conditioningparadigms(Hoffmann,Janssen,&Turner,2004; arousingstimuli.Sexuallyarousingsituationsareshowntobias Janssenetal.,2000). individuals’cognitiveprocessesbyshiftingfocusfrominhib- WhiletheimplicittasksdiscussedabovecaptureSystem1 itingcuestoappealing,desirablecues(Gold,1993).Individuals aspectsofdecisionmaking,theirrelianceontheinstructionto lowinintellectualability,highinsexualexcitation,orlowin subjectstorespondasfastaspossiblemeansthattheydonot,by sexualinhibitionmaybemoresusceptibletosuchinterfer- design,differentiatebetweenprocessesrelevanttotheinitiation encethanimpulsiveindividuals. orsuppressionofbehavioralimpulsesoractiontendencies.In Fourth,weexpectedthatmenwouldperformworseonthe contrast,thego/no-gotask,amethodthathasnotyetbeenused go/no-gotaskwhenpresentedwithsexualstimulithanwould insexualityresearch,isparticularlywell-suitedtostudyingsuch women,since,comparedtowomen,mendemonstratestronger operations.Go/no-gotaskshavebeenusedtoexaminedisad- approachtendenciestosexualstimuli(Baumeister,Catanese,& vantageousdecisionmakingpatternsindisinhibitedandrisk- Vohs,2001)andareshowntobemoresexuallyexcitableand 123 ArchSexBehav lesssexuallyinhibited(Carpenter,Janssen,Graham,Vorst,& SexualInhibition/SexualExcitationScales(SIS/SES) Wicherts,2008).Finally,weexpectedthatparticipantswould perform better after the contingency reversal, which would TheSIS/SESisa45-itemquestionnairethatmeasuresindivid- demonstratelearningoverthecourseofthetask.However,we ualdifferencesinthepropensityforsexualinhibitionandsexual expectedthathighlevelsofimpulsivityandsexualexcitation, excitationinmenandwomen(Janssen,Vorst,Finn,&Bancroft, andlowsexualinhibitionandintellectualabilities,wouldbe 2002a, b). The SIS/SES consists of three subscales: sexual linkedtoworseperformanceonthetaskfollowingthereversal. excitation(SES),sexualinhibitionduetothreatofperformance failure(SIS1;e.g.,abilitytomaintainanerectionorvaginallubri- cation),andsexualinhibitionduetothreatofnegativeconse- Method quences(SIS2;e.g.,fearofpregnancyorSTIs).Itemsarerated ona4-pointLikertscale,rangingfrom1=stronglyagreeto4= Participants stronglydisagree.Forthepurposeofthisstudy,andtolimitthe numberofvariablesforanalysis,wespecificallyfocusedonthe Participantswere53self-identifiedheterosexualundergraduate SESandSIS2subscales,whichinpreviousresearchhavebeen students(28menand25women)recruitedfromthepsychology associatedwiththetendencytoengageinriskysexualbehavior subjectpoolatalargeMidwesternuniversity.Themeanageof (e.g.,Bancroftetal.,2003,2004).SESsubscalescoresrangefrom participantswas19.5years(SD=1.7,range=18–27),andthe 20to80,withaCronbachalpha=.90.SIS1subscalescoresrange majority(86%)werewhite.Intermsofself-reportedrelation- from14to56withaCronbachalpha=.75.SIS2subscalescores shipstatus,64%weresingle/nevermarried,andtheremaining rangefrom11to44,withaCronbachalpha=.78(Janssenetal., 46%wereinanexclusive,monogamousrelationship.Allpar- 2002a,b).LowSIS2scoresindicateapropensityforcontinued ticipantsindicatedhavingpreviousexposuretosexuallyexplicit sexualresponseandarousalwhenfacedwithpotentiallynegative media. Participants were reimbursed for their participation consequencesofsex,andhighSESscoresindicateatendencyto withupto3hofresearchcreditforanintroductorypsychology beeasilysexuallyarousedbyavarietyofpotentiallysexualsit- course.Studyapprovalwasobtainedfromtheuniversity’s uationsandstimuli.NormativemeansandSDformenonthe HumanSubjectsCommittee. SIS2subscaleare27.7±4.8and57.2±7.9ontheSESsubscale (Janssenetal.,2002a).Women’snormativemeansandSDonthe Measures SIS2subscaleare31.7±4.3and51.3±8.5ontheSESsubscale (Carpenteretal.,2008). DemographicsandSexualHistoryQuestionnaire (DSHQ) AbstractionSubtestoftheShipleyInstituteofLivingScale This questionnaire was adapted from Bancroft et al. (2003, (SILS) 2004)andcoversdemographicinformation,sexualorientation, relationshipstatus,andfrequencyofdifferenttypesofsexual TheSILSisabrief,self-administeredtestofgeneralintellectual activity. functioninginadolescentsandadults(Zachary,1986).Itcon- sistsoftwosubteststhatmeasurevocabularyandabstractrea- Impulsivity soning,andfull-scaleWechslerAdultIntelligenceScale- Revised:2006;Lawetal.,2009)andreliesmoreonprefrontal The Impulsivity subscale of the Eysenck Personality Ques- functionthanthevocabularysubtest,whichisanindicatorof tionnaire (Eysenck, Pearson, Easting, & Alsopp, 1985) mea- crystallizedintelligence(Vitalianoetal.,2005). sures the propensity for engaging in impulsive behavior and consists of 19 items with a forced-choice response format, scoredas0or1.Itemsinclude,‘‘Doyouneedtousealotofself- SubjectiveSexualArousal controltokeepoutoftrouble?’’and‘‘Doyougenerallydoand saythingswithoutstoppingtothink?’’Normativemeanscores Finally,todeterminetheinfluenceofsexualarousalongo/no-go ontheImpulsivityscaleforindividualsinthe20–29agerange task performance, participants were asked to rate their sub- areapproximately7.9±4.1formenand9.0±4.1forwomen. jectivesexualarousalona5-pointLikertscale(1=notatall TheImpulsivityscaledemonstratesgoodinternalconsistency sexuallyarousedto5=extremelysexuallyaroused)immedi- reliability, with aCronbach alpha of .83 for men and .84 for atelyfollowingeachofthefourfilmclipspresentedduringthe women. experiment. 123 ArchSexBehav Procedure stimulus, or‘‘WRONG, -1000 points’’in redtext ifthepar- ticipantrespondedtoaNo-gostimulus.Ifparticipantswithheld Stimuli responsestoGostimuliortoNo-gostimuli,nofeedbackwas givenandtheexperimentautomaticallyproceededtothenext At the beginning of each of the four conditions, participants trial.Ultimately,participantswhoperformedwellonthetask werepresentedwitha3minfilmcliptoinduceeithersexual learnedtorespondconsistentlytoGostimuliandtostoprespond- arousaloraneutralmoodstate.Ofthefourfilmclips,twowere ingtoNo-gostimuli.Taskperformancewasmeasuredbytotals sexualinnatureandhadbeenratedashighlysexuallyarousing offalsealarms(i.e.,pressingthespacebarinresponsetoaNo-go inapreviousstudy(Janssen,Carpenter,&Graham,2003).The stimulus)andmisses(i.e.,notpressingthespacebarinresponse twoneutralfilmclipsweretakenfromdocumentariesaboutcats toaGostimulus).Unlikepreviousstudies,wedidnotprovide and sea turtles. After each of the four film clips, participants monetaryrewardsforgoodperformanceonthetasktoavoid engagedinago/no-gotaskcomprisedoftensexualortenneutral confounding the motivational salience of financialincentives stimuli.Thestimuliconsistedof40colorphotostakenfromthe withthatofthesexuallyarousingstimuli. Hot/CoolPictureSet(Finn,Rickert,&Lucas,2004,unpub- The experiment was organized into four conditions pre- lishedrawdata).Halfofthephotosdepictednude,heterosexual sentedtoeachparticipantinrandomizedorder.Eachcondition couplesengagedinsexualactivity(e.g.,oralsex,vaginalinter- consistedofasexualorneutralfilmclip,aratingofsubjective course). The remaining 20 photos depicted neutral scenes of sexualarousalinresponsetothefilmclip,andasexualorneutral individualsengagedineverydayactivities(e.g.,work,leisure). go/no-go task. Each go/no-go task included 10 blocks of 10 Thephotoswerescaledtothesamedimensionof10249768 trialsdepictingeitherallsexualorallneutralstimuli.Thus,the pixelsandwereshownonablackbackground.Allfilmclipsand fourconditionswereasfollows:aneutralfilmclipfollowedbya photoswerepresentedusingDirectRTv.2004(Empirisoft neutralgo/no-gotask(NF/NT),aneutralfilmclipfollowedbya Corporation,NewYork)onanLCDcomputerscreen. sexualgo/no-gotask(NF/ST),asexualfilmclipfollowedbya Upon the participant’s arrival, the experimenter explained neutralgo/no-gotask(SF/NT),andasexualfilmclipfollowed thestudyproceduresandprovidedtheparticipantwithadetailed byasexualgo/no-gotask(SF/ST;seeTable1).Allstimuli informedconsentstatementtoreview.Theexperimenteraddressed withineachconditionwerepresentedinrandomizedorder.As theparticipant’squestionsorconcernsregardingthestudyprior inFinnetal.(1999),taskcontingencieswerereversedhalfway toobtainingwrittenconsent.TheSILSwasthenadministeredin througheachcondition,suchthatpreviouslycorrectstimuli(i.e., paper-and-pencil format. Following the SILS, the participant Gostimuli)werefollowedbyfeedbackindicatingawrong wasseatedaloneinfrontofacomputerscreeninaclosedtesting response,andpreviouslywrongstimuli(i.e.,No-gostimuli) room.TheDSHQandotherself-reportmeasureswereadmin- werefollowedbyfeedbackindicatingacorrectresponse.Par- istered online using SurveyMonkey data collection software ticipantswerenotinformedwhenthiscontingencyreversal (SurveyMonkey.com,Portland,Oregon).Theparticipantwas wouldoccur. alsofittedwithheadphonestohearaudiofromthefilmclipsand tominimizedistractionfromambientnoise.Theparticipant DataAnalysis then engaged in a brief practice session that demonstrated a mockversionofthego/no-gotask. Usingamediansplit,highandlowscoringgroupswerecreated Instructionspresentedonthecomputerscreeninformedthe forAbstraction,Impulsivity andSIS/SESscores.Subjectswith participantthatfourshortfilmclipswouldbeshown,andafter , scoresequaltothemedianwererandomlyassignedtolowand eachonetheparticipantwouldengageinashortphotolearning highscoringgroupssothatbothgroupswouldremainroughly task.Thego/no-go task,adaptedfromFinnetal.(1999), equivalentinsize.Mixedanalysesofvariance(ANOVAs)were involved the serial presentation of ten different stimuli, each performedtotestinfluencesofthewithin-subjectsvariablesof shownonacomputerscreenforamaximumof1500ms.Unlike filmclipsandtaskstimuliandthebetween-subjectsvariablesof Finnetal.,thepresentexperimentemployedsexualandneutral photos instead of numeric stimuli. Five of the photos were randomlyassignedtobe‘‘Go’’stimuliandfivewereassignedto be‘‘No-go’’stimuli.Participantswereinstructedtolearnbytrial Table1 Abbreviationsforexperimentconditions anderrorwhentoGo(pressthespacebar)andwhennottoGo Neutralgo/no-gotask Sexualgo/no-gotask (withholdaresponse).TodistinguishbetweenGoandNo-go stimuli,participantscouldchoosetopressthespacebarduring Neutralmoodfilmclip NF/NT NF/ST thepresentationofeachphoto.Afterpressingthespacebar,cor- Sexualarousalfilmclip SF/NT SF/ST rectivefeedbackwasprovidedwithina750msinter-trialinter- Note:Eachconditionconsistedof10blocksof10trialsofago/no-go val. A black screen displayed the word‘‘CORRECT, ?1000 task,precededbyafilmclip.Conditionswerecounterbalancedtoavoid points’’in green text if the participant responded to a Go ordereffects 123 ArchSexBehav participantsexandindividualdifferences(i.e.,SIS2,SES, FalseAlarms Impulsivity,andAbstractionscores)oneachofthedependent variablesoftotalfalsealarmsandmissesonthego/no-gotask. A2(Sex:Malevs.Female)92(Impulsivity:Lowvs.High)92 Separatefalsealarmandmisstotalswerecalculatedforbefore (ContingencyReversal:Prevs.Post)92(Film:Sexualvs.Neu- andafterthecontingencyreversalineachcondition.Significant tral)92(Task:Sexualvs.Neutral)mixedfactorANOVAexam- interactioneffectswerefollowedupwithpost-hocpairwisecom- ined the effects of participant sex, impulsivity, and sexually parisonsusingBonferronicorrections.SPSSv.16.0forWindows arousingstimulionparticipants’falsealarmsbeforeandafterthe (SPSSInc.)wasusedforallanalyses. taskcontingencyreversal.Significantresultsofthisanalysis(see Table3)includedmaineffectsofContingencyReversal,Sex,and Task,qualifiedbyaSex9TaskinteractionandanImpulsivity9 Results Film9Task interaction. Participants committed more false alarmsbeforethecontingencyreversal(M=9.4,SE=0.4)than SampleCharacteristicsandManipulationCheck after the reversal (M=6.6, SE= 0.5), indicating that they learned to stop responding to No-go stimuli as the task pro- Comparingbothmeansandmedians,menandwomendidnot gressed.Follow-uptestsontheSex9Taskinteractionrevealed significantlydifferinage,SES,SIS2,Impulsivity,orAbstrac- thatduringthesexualtask,womencommittedmorefalsealarms tion(seeTable2).Bivariatecorrelationsrevealednosignificant (M=10.3,SE=0.6)thandidmen(M=8.0,SE=0.6;p\.01), associations among our self-report measures, indicating that contrarytoourprediction.Nosexdifferenceswerefoundforthe eachofourmeasuresassessedadifferentconstruct.Themedian neutraltask.Finally,individualswithhigherimpulsivityscores responseswere53forSES,31forSIS2,and8forImpulsivity. committedmorefalsealarmsintheSF/STconditionthaninthe Therefore,foreachquestionnaire,26participantswereassigned NF/STcondition(Fig.1).Nodifferencesinfalsealarmsrelatedto tothelowscoringgroup,and27participantstothehighscoring impulsivitywerefoundintheremainingconditions. group.ThemedianresponsetotheAbstractionscalewas15. The next ANOVA replaced the Impulsivity factor with Oneparticipantdidnotcompletethescale;thus,26participants Abstraction.Likeinthepreviousanalysis,themaineffectsof wereassignedtoeachofthetwo(lowandhigh)groups. ContingencyReversal,Sex,andTask,andtheSex9Task Totestwhetherthesexualfilmclipseffectivelyinducedsex- interaction,weresignificantandwillnotberepeatedhere.This ualarousal,weperformedaone-samplettestonparticipants’ analysis also yielded a significant Abstraction9Film9Con- subjectiveratingsofsexualarousalafterthesexualfilms.This tingencyReversalinteraction,F(1,48)=8.72,p\.01,partial analysisrevealedthatparticipantsfoundthefilmssignificantly g2=.15.Follow-upanalysescomparingpre-andpost-contin- sexuallyarousing,t(52)=25.40,p\.001.Attestyieldedno gencyreversalerrorsshowedthat,afterasexualfilm,individ- significant sex difference in subjective sexual arousal ratings ualswithhigherabstractionscoreshadsignificantlyfewerfalse after the sexual films, t(51)=1.47. All participants rated the alarmsafterthecontingencyreversal(M=5.2,SE=0.7)than nonsexualfilmsas‘‘notatallsexuallyarousing.’’Finally,bivar- before the contingency reversal (M=8.9, SE=0.6; p=.01), iatecorrelationstestedassociationsbetweenratingsofsexual arousal,impulsivity,sexualexcitationandinhibition,andintel- lectualability.Theanalysisshowedasignificantpositivecor- relationbetweenSESscoresandsexualarousalratings,r(51)= Table3 Mixedanalysisofvariancewithimpulsivityforfalsealarms .33,p\.05,indicatingthatindividualshigherinsexualexcita- Source df F g2 p tionfoundthefilmsmoresexuallyarousing.Noothersignificant correlationswerefound. Betweensubjects Sex 1 4.27 .08 \.05 Error 49 (51.0) Table2 Samplecharacteristics Withinsubjects Variable Men(N=28) Women(N=25) Task 1 44.87 .48 \.001 Task9Sex 1 5.81 .11 \.05 M SD M SD Error 49 (12.6) Age 19.8 1.6 19.3 1.9 Contingencyreversal 1 31.86 .39 \.001 SIS2 29.5 5.0 31.9 4.8 Error 49 (25.3) SES 52.7 6.9 52.3 7.7 Film9Task9Impulsivity 1 4.51 .08 \.05 Impulsivity 9.4 4.3 7.9 3.9 Error 49 (21.0) Abstraction 15.4 2.8 15.1 2.6 Note:Valuesinparenthesesaremeansquareerrors.Onlysignificant Note:Nosignificantsexdifferences.Absoluteranges:SIS2,0–44;SES, effectsareshown.FullANOVAtablesareavailablefromthecorres- 0–80;Impulsivity,0–19;Abstraction,0–20 pondingauthoruponrequest 123 ArchSexBehav Neutral task Sexual task aftersexualfilms.Wefoundnoeffectsofimpulsivityonpartic- 11 ipants’misses,consistentwithourpredictions. 10 A similar ANOVA replaced the Impulsivity factor with ms 9 Abstraction and showed significant effects of Contingency ar 8 ReversalandFilm9ContingencyReversal,butdidnotshow al e 7 a significant main effect of Sex in contrast to the previous s al 6 analysis on miss data. The analysis also yielded a Sex9 F 5 Abstraction9Taskinteraction,F(1,48)=4.91,p\.05,partial 4 g2=.09.Follow-uptestsshowedthatmenwithlowerabstrac- Neutral Sexual tionscoreshadsignificantlymoremissesonthesexualgo/no-go Film tasks(M=6.5,SE=1.0)thanmenwithhighabstractionscores Fig.1 Meanfalsealarmsonthego/no-gotasksforparticipantshighin (M=3.6, SE=0.9) and women with low abstraction scores impulsivity.Participantshighinimpulsivityhadsignificantlymorefalse (M=3.5,SE=1.0;ps\.05).Nosignificanteffectswerefound alarms on sexual tasks following the presentation of a sexual film, fortheneutraltask.Thisfinding(Fig.2)supportedourhypoth- comparedtotheirfalsealarmsonneutraltasksfollowingasexualfilm esis that low intellectual aptitude, at least in men, would be (p\.001) associatedwithmoreerrorslinkedtosexuallyarousingstimuli. ThenextanalysisreplacedtheAbstractionfactorwithSIS2 whereasindividualswithlowerabstractionscoresdidnotshow and yielded significant main effects of Sex, Contingency this difference. A direct comparison of the low and high Reversal,andaFilm9ContingencyReversalinteraction.We abstractiongroupsshowedthatindividualshighinabstraction also found a significant SIS29Film9Task interaction, F(1, tended to commitfewer errors after the contingency reversal 49)=4.12,p\.05,partialg2=.08.Afollow-upanalysisonthe whensexualfilmswerepresented(M=5.2,SE=0.7)thandid three-wayinteractionindicatedthatindividualslowinsexual individualslowinabstraction(M=7.0,SE=0.7;p\.06). inhibitiontendedtohavemoremissesintheSF/STcondition Together,thesefindingsindicatethat,comparedtoindividuals (M=5.6,SE=0.9)thanintheSF/NTcondition(M=3.2, lower in intellectual ability, individuals higher in intellectual SE=0.9),althoughthisresultwassignificantatthetrendlevel abilitymayhavebeenmoresuccessfulatwithholdingresponses only (p=.06). The analysis failed to show other interactions toNo-gotrialsafterthecontingencyreversal. withSIS2. Finally, as in the previous two analyses, the MANOVAs ThefinalANOVAreplacedtheSIS2factorwithSESand replacingtheAbstractionfactorwithSESandSIS2produced yieldedsignificantmaineffectsofSex,ContingencyReversal,a significant main effects of Contingency Reversal, Task, and Film9Contingency Reversal interaction, and a SES9Film Sex,andasignificantinteractionofSex9Task.However,there interaction.TheseeffectswerequalifiedbysignificantSES9 werenosignificanteffectsinvolvingeitherSIS2orSES. Film9ContingencyReversalandSex9SES9Film9Task9 ContingencyReversalinteractions(seeTable4).TheSES9 Misses Similaranalyseswereperformedtotesttheeffectsofourwithin- 10 and between-subjects variables on the dependent variable of 9 * misses.The2(Sex)92(Impulsivity)92(ContingencyRever- 8 * sal)92(Film)92(Task)mixedfactorANOVArevealedamain 7 effectofSex,F(1,49)=5.13,p\.05,partialg2=.10.Further- s 6 e more,amaineffectofContingencyReversal,F(1,49)=6.69, ss 5 p\.05,partialg2=.12,wasqualifiedbyaContingencyRever- Mi 4 sal9Filminteraction,F(1,49)=6.97,p\.05,partialg2=.13. 3 RegardingthemaineffectofSex,menhadmoremisses(M=5.3, 2 SE=0.6)thanwomen(M=3.5,SE=0.6).Follow-upanalyses 1 on the Contingency Reversal9Film interaction revealed that, 0 Low High Low High afterneutralfilms,participantshadmoremissespriortothecon- Men Women tingencyreversal(M=5.7,SE=0.6)thanafterthereversal(M= 3.6, SE=0.5; p=.001). However, following a sexual arousal Abstraction Scores induction,therewasnosignificantdifferenceinmissesbefore Fig.2 Meanmissesonthesexualgo/no-gotasksbyabstractionscores (M=4.5,SE=0.5)andafterthecontingencyreversal(M=4.0, and participant sex. Men low in abstraction had significantly more SE=0.5), indicating that participants learned to adjust their missesonsexualgo/no-gotaskscomparedtomenhighinabstraction responsestrategyafterthepresentationofneutralfilms,butnot andwomenlowinabstraction(ps\.05) 123 ArchSexBehav Table4 Mixedanalysisofvariancewithsexualexcitationscoresfor missesintheSF/NTcondition(M=7.6,SE=1.3)thandidmen misses lowinsexualexcitation(M=3.6,SE=1.3)andwomenhighin Source df F g2 p sexual excitation (M=3.9, SE=1.3; ps\.05). Second, men lowinsexualexcitationhadfewermissesintheSF/STcondition Betweensubjects (M=3.7,SE=1.4)comparedtotheNF/STcondition(M=7.1, Sex 1 4.30 .08 \.05 SE=1.5;p\.05).Lastly,womenlowinsexualexcitationhad Error 49 (71.5) fewermissesintheSF/NTcondition(M=2.2,SE=1.4)com- Withinsubjects pared to the NF/NT condition (M=6.4, SE=1.6; p\.05). Film9SES 1 4.60 .09 \.05 Together,thesefindingssupportedourhypothesisthathighsex- Error 49 (21.8) ualexcitationwouldbeassociatedwithmoremisses,andlow Contingencyreversal(CR) 1 7.23 .13 .01 sexualexcitationwithfewer,inresponsetosexuallyarous- Error 49 (26.0) ingstimuli. Film9CR 1 7.42 .13 \.01 Film9CR9SES 1 4.87 .09 \.05 Error 49 (7.9) Discussion Film9Task9CR9Sex9SES 1 5.75 .11 \.05 Error 49 (5.8) Toourknowledge,thisisthefirststudytousethego/no-gopara- digmtoexaminerelationshipsbetweenpersonalityandother Note:Valuesinparenthesesaremeansquareerrors.Onlysignificant effectsareshown individualdifferencevariablesandSystem1processesrelevant tosexualdecisionmaking.Wepredictedthatlowsexualinhi- bitionandhighsexualexcitation,butnothightraitimpulsivity, Filminteractionindicatedthatindividualslowinsexualexci- would be associated with decreased performance (i.e., more tationhadfewermissesafterthepresentationofasexualfilm falsealarmsandmisses)inconditionsinvolvingsexualimages (M=3.5,SE=0.6)thanafteraneutralfilm(M=4.9,SE= orsexualfilmclips.Moreover,wepredictedthatlowerintel- 0.7).Theremainingsignificantresultsinthisanalysisappearto lectualabilitieswouldbeassociatedwithpoorerperformancein bedrivenbytherobustmaineffectofContingencyReversal. conditionswithsexuallyarousingstimuli.Wealsoexpectedthat TheSES9Film9ContingencyReversalinteractionrevealed menwouldhavemoreerrorscomparedtowomen,andthatper- thatparticipantshighinsexualexcitationhadmoremissesprior formancepost-contingencyreversalwouldshowfewererrors tothecontingencyreversalwhenasexualfilmwaspresented exceptforthosehighinimpulsivityandsexualexcitation,and (M=5.7,SE=0.7)thandidparticipantslowinsexualexcita- lowinsexualinhibitionandintellectualability. tion(M=3.3,SE=0.7;Fig.3).Participantslowinsexualexci- tationhadfewermissespriortothecontingencyreversalafter sexualfilmsthanafterneutralfilms(M=6.0,SE=0.9;p\.01). Impulsivity Finally,follow-uptestsontheSex9SES9Film9Task9 ContingencyReversalinteractionrevealedthatpriortothe Contrary to our predictions, impulsivity was associated with contingencyreversal,menhighinsexualexcitationhadmore morefalsealarmsintheSF/STcondition.Thus,whileimpul- sivity has been linked to poor overall performance on other laboratorytasksofdecision making(e.g.,Sweitzer,Allen,& 8 * Kaut, 2008), the presentstudy found thatimpulsivity was 7 associated with poor performance specifically in response to 6 sexuallyarousingstimuli.Someconceptualizationsofimpul- s 5 e sivityinvolveatendencytorespondtomotivationally-oremo- s Mis 4 tionally-salientstimuli(Evenden,1999),whichmayexplain 3 thisfinding. 2 1 SexualArousability 0 Low High Sexualinhibitionwasnotassociatedspecificallywitherrors Sexual Excitation Scores duringconditionsinwhichsexualstimuliwerepresented.The Fig.3 Meanmissesonthego/no-gotaskspriortocontingencyreversal SIS2scalemeasures‘‘sexualinhibitionduetothreatofperfor- andafterasexualfilm.Comparedtoparticipantslowinsexualexcitation, manceconsequences’’(Janssenetal.,2002a,b),suchasunwanted participantshighinsexualexcitationhadsignificantlymoremissesonthe pregnancy or contracting an STI. However, our study did not go/no-gotasksbeforethecontingencyreversalinconditionspresenting sexualfilms(p\.05) presentparticipantswithpotentialnegativeconsequences,which 123 ArchSexBehav maypartlyexplainwhysexualinhibitionwasunrelatedtoerror activity (e.g., unprotected sex) that is paired with a negative totals. Thus, the inclusion of high-risk sexual scenarios (e.g., consequence (e.g., contracting an STI) will choose to wear Abbeyetal.,2005)oractualmonetaryloss(e.g.,Finnetal.,1999) condoms. It may be that individuals with lower intellectual inourstudymighthaveeliciteddifferenteffectsinvolvingsexual abilitiesareathigherriskforcontinuingtohaveunprotectedsex inhibition.Alternatively,whileSIS2scoreshavebeenfoundtobe despite the possibility of spreading or contracting additional predictiveofself-reportedsexualriskbehaviorsinrelativelylarge STIs.Furthermore,lowerintellectualabilitiesinmenwereasso- surveystudies(forareview,seeBancroftetal.,2009)theyhave ciatedwithmoremisseswhensexualimageswerepresented, mainlybeenpredictiveinsmallerlaboratorystudieswhensub- comparedtobothwomenwithsimilarabilitiesandmenwith jects were selected on SIS/SES scores (Janssen et al., 2002b), higher abilities. Low intellectual ability has been associated whichwasnotthecaseinthepresentstudy.Thus,thecurrent with attentional problems in men (e.g., Frazier, Demaree, & studymayhaveinvolvedamorelimitedrangeofSIS/SESscores, Youngstrom,2004),anditmaybethatthecontentofthesexual in particular an underrepresentation of low SIS2 scores. For imagesdrewattentionawayfromthetaskathand,leadingto example,inthestudybyJanssenetal.(2002b),whichinvolved greatermissrates. men only, the average of the low SIS2 group was 19 and the averageofthehighSIS2groupwas29.TheaverageSIS2scoreof themalesampleinthecurrentstudywas29.5(withamedianof SexDifferences 31),whichindicatesthatthecurrentsamplescored,overall,rel- ativelyhighonSIS2. The go/no-go task also elicited interesting sex differences Sexual excitation scores, while on average lower for both associatedwithoursexualstimuli.Unexpectedly,wefoundthat men and women than has been found in other studies (e.g., womenhadmorefalsealarmsintasksdepictingsexualimages, Carpenteretal.,2008;Janssenetal.,2002a,b),showedsome- whereasmenhadmoremisses.Thismaybeduetodifferencesin whatmorevariability,andwerelinkedtoanumberoffindings sexualinterestintheimages.Pressingthespacebartorespondto showingmoremissesongo/no-gotasksthatfollowedsexual a photo immediately removed it from the screen, thereby films.Sexualexcitationwasassociatedwithmoremisses,par- reducingitspresentationtime.Menmayhavedesiredtolook ticularly afterthemidwaycontingencyreversalinconditions longerattheimages,therebymissingtheopportunitytorespond with sexual films. Individuals high in sexual excitability are toGotrials,whereaswomenmayhavewantedtoproceedmore thoughttoexhibitanattentionalbiastowardsexuallyarousing quicklythroughthesexualimages,leadingthemtobeless cues(Janssenetal.,2002a).Sincesexualexcitationscoreswere carefulinrespondingtoNo-gotrials.Althoughwedidnot positively associated with sexual arousal, this may have led explicitlyevaluateparticipants’sexualinterestinthephotos,it participants to failto attend to signals indicating they should maybebeneficialtodosoinfuturestudies. reverse their response strategy. In an actual sexual situation, individualshighinsexualexcitabilitymaybesosensitivetothe Conclusions pleasurableaspectsofsexualencountersthattheymiss,orpur- poselyignore,cuesindicatingpotentiallynegativeoutcomes. Together,thesefindingssuggestthattheprocessesunderlying decisionmakingandlearningrelevanttosexualbehaviorare IntellectualAbility complex. In some individuals, poor task performance was relatedtoamechanismspecifictosexualbehavior(i.e.,sexual Asexpected,lowerintellectualabilitiesweregenerallyassoci- excitation),whereasinothers,itwasassociatedwithmoregen- atedwithmorefalsealarmsafterthecontingencyreversalin eralindividualdifferencevariables.Itislikelythaterrorsinreal- conditions involving the presentation of a sexual film. This world sexual situations, such as failures to use condoms or findingbuildsuponthoseofFinnetal.(1999),whoalsoshowed neglectingtoaskanewpartner’sSTIorHIVstatus,areasso- a relationship between low cognitive ability and higher error ciatedwithdifferentprocessesdependingonthepersonandthe ratespost-contingencyreversalonago/no-gotask.Following context.Forexample,decidingagainstusingcondomsmaybe a contingency reversal, participants must not only remember linkedtoimpulsivityinonepersonwhoengagesinriskbehav- which stimuli were previously correct and wrong in order to iorsinmultipledomains,whereasinanother,itmaybedueto reversetheirresponsepattern,buttheymustalsodosoquickly increasedsensitivitytosexuallyarousingstimuliorlowintel- andaccuratelytoavoidpenalty.Thisdemandingcognitivepro- lectualability. cessrequiresmentalflexibility,attention,andworkingmemory. Comparedtopreviousresearchonsexualdecisionmaking, Consequently, the ability to avoid responding to previously the methodology of the current study was unique in several rewardedstimulimaybeparticularlydifficultforindividualsof ways.Toourknowledge,thisisthefirststudytousethego/no- lowerintellectualabilitywhoarealsosexuallyaroused.Thishas gotaskparadigmtoexplorethemechanismsofdiscrimination implicationsforreal-worldsexualsituations.Forinstance,not learning and choice behavior when individuals are presented all individuals who engage in risky, yet pleasurable sexual withsexuallyarousingstimuli.Whilepreviousanaloguestudies 123 ArchSexBehav thatmeasuredindividuals’responsestoahypotheticalsexual wellasagraduateresearchgrantfromtheFriendsoftheKinseyInstitute. scenariolikelytapintomoredeliberative,effortfuldecisionpro- DevelopmentoftheHot/CoolPictureSetwassupportedbyagrantfromthe NationalInstituteonDrugAbusetoPeterR.Finn(1R01-DA017924). cesses,go/no-gotasksarebettersuitedtomeasureautomatic, rapidchoicebehaviorwhichmorecloselyapproximatesSys- tem1decisionmakinginthe‘‘heatofthemoment.’’Further- References more,suchimplicittasksdonotrelyonsubjectiveself-reports, which render them less susceptible to socially desirable Abbey,A.,Saenz,C.,&Buck,P.O.(2005).Thecumulativeeffectsofacute responding. Additionally, this study used brief film clips to alcoholconsumption,individualdifferences,andsituationalpercep- inducesexualarousaloraneutralmoodstatepriortoeachtask, tionsonsexualdecisionmaking.JournalofStudiesonAlcohol,66, whereaspreviousstudiesongo/no-golearningandriskydeci- 82–90. sion making have not attempted this type of manipulation. Abbey,A.,Saenz,C.,Buck,P.O.,Parkhill,M.R.,&Hayman,L.W.(2006). Theeffectsofacutealcoholconsumption,cognitivereserve,partner Finally,unlikethestudydesignofNewmanetal.(1985)and risk,andgenderonsexualdecisionmaking.JournalofStudieson Finnetal.(1999),ourgo/no-gotaskdidnotusemonetaryincen- Alcohol,67,113–121. tivestoreinforcelearning.Providingparticipantswithmoney Ariely,D.,&Loewenstein,G.(2006).Theheatofthemoment:Theeffectof totals may have been a potential confound, as we would be sexual arousal on sexual decision making. Journal of Behavioral DecisionMaking,19,87–98. unable to disentangle whether participants’ performance was Bancroft,J.(1999).Centralinhibitionofsexualresponseinthemale:A linkedtotheirmonetaryrewardortheirresponsetothecontent theoreticalperspective.NeuroscienceandBiobehavioralReviews, ofthesexualphotosthemselves. 23,763–784. Limitations of the current study should be considered in Bancroft,J.,Graham,C.A.,Janssen,E.,&Sanders,S.A.(2009).The dualcontrolmodel:Currentstatusandfuturedirections.Journalof futureresearchonsexualdecisionmaking.Therelativelysmall SexResearch,46,121–142. samplesizemayhavemaskedsubtleindividualdifferencesin Bancroft,J.,&Janssen,E.(2000).Thedualcontrolmodelofmalesexual sexual inhibition and excitation, impulsivity, or intelligence response:Atheoreticalapproachtocentrallymediatederectiledys- becauseafterquestionnairescoresweredividedbymediansplit, function.NeuroscienceandBiobehavioralReviews,24,571–579. Bancroft,J.,Janssen,E.,Carnes,L.,Goodrich,D.,Strong,D.,&Long, approximately26participantswereassignedtoeachhighand J. S. (2004). Sexual risk taking in young heterosexual men: The lowgroup.Furthermore,oursampleconsistedprimarilyofcol- relevanceofsexualexcitation,moodandsensationseeking.Journal lege-agedmenandwomen,whomayhavehadminimalsexual ofSexResearch,41,181–192. experienceandmaynotberepresentativeofthesexualinhibi- Bancroft,J.,Janssen,E.,Strong,D.,Carnes,L.,Vukadinovic,Z.,& Long,J.S.(2003).Sexualrisktakingingaymen:Therelevanceof tion and excitation propensities of older adults. Thus, future sexualexcitation,moodandsensationseeking.ArchivesofSexual studiesmayconsideratargetedrecruitmentstrategyinorderto Behavior,32,555–572. captureawideragerangeandmorevariabilityinourvariables Barlow,D.H.(1986).Causesofsexualdysfunction:Theroleofanxietyand ofinterest.Lastly,onemayarguethatusingago/no-gotaskto cognitiveinterference.JournalofConsultingandClinicalPsychol- ogy,54,140–148. measure mechanisms of sexual decision making is less eco- Batty,G.D.,Deary,I.J.,&Macintyre,S.(2006).ChildhoodIQandlife logicallyvalidthanananaloguestudydesign.Itwouldbeinter- course socioeconomic position in relation to alcohol induced estingtoincludeanimplicitlearninganddecisiontaskaswellas hangoversinadulthood:TheAberdeenChildrenofthe1950sStudy. ananaloguetaskinonestudytoexplorethedifferentdecision JournalofEpidemiologyandCommunityHealth,60,872–874. Baumeister,R.F.,Catanese,K.R.,&Vohs,K.D.(2001).Isthereagender processeselicitedbythetwomethods. differenceinstrengthofsexdrive?Theoreticalviews,conceptual Thisstudycontributestothegrowingliteraturedemonstrat- distinctions,andareviewofrelevantevidence.PersonalityandSocial ingthataconfluenceofcognitive,motivational,andpersonality PsychologyReview,5,242–273. factorscontributetovariabilityinrapiddecisionmakingrele- Brand,M.,Heinze,K.,Labudda,K.,&Markowitsch,H.J.(2008).The roleofstrategies indecidingadvantageously inambiguous and vanttosexualbehavior.Ourfindingsprovideevidencethat,for riskysituations.CognitiveProcesses,9,159–173. impulsiveindividuals,orthoselowinintellectualability,sex- Carpenter,D.,Janssen,E.,Graham,C.,Vorst,H.,&Wicherts,J.(2008). uallyarousingstimuliinterferewiththeabilitytoquicklyand Women’sscoresontheSexualInhibition/SexualExcitationScales appropriatelyrespondtocuessignalingrewardandpunishment. (SIS/SES): Gender similarities and differences. Journal of Sex Research,45,36–48. Moreover, sexually excitable individuals may have difficulty CentersforDiseaseControlandPrevention.(2009).Trendsinreportable shiftingattentionfromsexuallyarousingcuestosignalsindic- sexuallytransmitteddiseasesintheUnitedStates,2007:Nationalsur- ative of risk in the heat of the moment. Finally, our findings veillancedataforchlamydia,gonorrhea,andsyphilis.Availableat implythatsexualinhibitionmaynotnecessarilyleadtodisad- http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/trends.pdf. deWit,H.,Flory,J.D.,Acheson,A.,McCloskey,M.,&Manuck,S.(2007). vantageouspatternsofdecisionmakingwhenpotentialnegative IQandnonplanningimpulsivityareindependentlyassociatedwith consequencesofsexualbehaviorarenotevident. delaydiscountinginmiddle-agedadults.PersonalityandIndividual Differences,42,111–121. Acknowledgments This research was supported by predoctoral fel- Ditto,P.H.,Pizarro,D.A.,Epstein,B.E.,Jacobson,J.A.,&MacDonald,T. lowshipstothefirstauthorfromtheNationalInstituteofMentalHealth K.(2006).Visceralinfluencesonrisk-takingbehavior.Journalof (T32-MH17146)andtheNationalInstitutesofHealth(TL1-RR025759),as BehavioralDecisionMaking,19,99–113. 123